I caved and registered with my real name. I figure if I could do it with Facebook (which I despise) then I can do it through google who already owns my identity anyway between my android phone, gmail, picasa, google music, google finance, google docs, and google voice. I actually really like google+ which is the first social anything I can say that about.

It seems I have 4 days to comply before suspension, also I would still be able to use Gmail, but not Google Reader, which is a pain in the ass, because I'm using it a lot. (that's fucked up, if I hadn't subscribed to Google+, I'd still be able to use Reader without problems).

Also, I keep reading messages, blog post, magazine articles about people who are unhappy with Google+ policy, but are there also people who are happy with it ? Who support and approve it ? And who are they ?

Don't know if this has been covered, but for me one of the things I've kinda enjoyed about google plus is tagging things with my location on the iphone and opening them up publicly (I guess in a twitter-esque way, but I'm not on twitter). I think it might be more interesting for me than others because I'm in Japan so I post stuff in English and Japanese and have a bunch of Japanese people seeing what's 'nearby' and commenting on my stuff, which makes me practice my kanji reading/use google translate more.

And speaking of which I'd have to guess that they aren't cracking down on Japanese people's nicknames as much as you guys have experienced. Those guys are calling themselves all kinds of crazy shit, changing things all the time and none of the people I'm following have disappeared yet.

Then, perhaps they're being lenient on Japanese users because allegedly Japanese people were reluctant to join facebook because of it's stricter naming policy, whereas on the biggest Japanese social network Mixi they can remain relatively anonymous.

I think I'll do myself a whitechapel circle when I have time coz you guys are pretty smart. I'm at Alex Williams. Does that work?

How is Google Reader attatched to Google+? I've seen that they deactivate your google reader when you get banned. But I haven't seen any of my Google Reader shares going over to Google+. Am I missing something?

The whole name thing with Google plus has me very close to just shutting it down. While my current name is my legal name as well--that wasn't always the case, and frankly should be none of a freaking email services' business. Plus I think the only reason they want actual legal names is so it will be easier to data farm the user base for advertising. The whole thing just really bothers me.

I would still be able to use Gmail, but not Google Reader, which is a pain in the ass, because I'm using it a lot. (that's fucked up, if I hadn't subscribed to Google+, I'd still be able to use Reader without problems).

The key there is "full use." I use Reader and haven't noticed any problems since being suspended - it still brings my feeds through to iGoogle, I can still add subscriptions and change settings (adding a feed to another category). So I assume what gets nobbled are the more... social aspects of your feeds, perhaps you can no longer share them with other people? I am unsure about what exactly stops working when your account is suspended (and am not aware of a list, but I might suggest someone creates one) but you should still be able to use Reader and Picasa for most things, Buzz I am less sure about (because it is an earlier attempt at a social site so might get more downgraded than the others).

Also, I keep reading messages, blog post, magazine articles about people who are unhappy with Google+ policy, but are there also people who are happy with it ? Who support and approve it ? And who are they ?

Robert Scoble has been one of the more outspoken supporters of this outside Google+ (although to be honest I know plenty of people inside G+ who aren't enthusiastic about it or at least would support pseudonymous use, at least one of them has been subsequently gagged), but even he has mellowed on this, although he says he does prefer the aesthetics of the place without all those weird names cluttering it up.

I'm more or less done with the nym wars. (this isn't directed at you fine people) - No one seems to be taking the time to actually read the TOS before they bitch about it. After Ariana's length discussion with me and a few other folks on her G+ page, I ended up writing this... http://aberrospecus.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/whats-in-a-name/

I think people need to shut up, read the actual fucking policy, and get on with their lives at this point. The only people with legitimate concerns should be the people getting banned for still using their legal name, because it's odd (mononyms).

You can use any name you want, as long as it is what you are commonly referred to as, either in the real world, or online (if that is your "real world") according to their TOS. As long as it has a first and last name (a bone of contention with many folks, I know, but... get over it). The only people I can see having a problem at this point are people like Emperor... and I assume you've made a decision on all of this by this point?

You can use any name you want, as long as it is what you are commonly referred to as, either in the real world, or online (if that is your "real world") according to their TOS. As long as it has a first and last name

Not apparently true - although Lady Gaga and 50 Cent use a first name last name approach, so did I ("The" being the first name) and so have Kaliya Identity Woman, Doctor Popular, Bug Girl and Rainyday Superstar. Google seem to want you to put you legal name in the name field (or a reasonably close approximation, that you can see is derived from your legal ID) and any nicknames or pseudonyms in the "other names" field, they are clearly just prepared to turn a blind eye to celebrity cases like that, because all Hell would break loose if they booted them out. I assume they'll get shuffled over to the brands/business/non-human entity type of accounts when they go live (it does seem like this is coming). I think a rule of thumb seems to be if it is the name on your Wikipedia entry you are OK ;) and/or if you name looks "normal" from a generally WASPy perspective.

The only people I can see having a problem at this point are people like Emperor... and I assume you've made a decision on all of this by this point?

Yep, they rejected my appeal so I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I do believe allowing people to use a pseudonym, and the whole Nym Wars business has only helped underline how important it is. However, I feel the Nym Wars are essentially over, Google are clear (ish) about who they do and don't want (if more from their actions rather than their words), the rest is just mopping up the pseudonymous accounts. Which I'm sure will be seen as defeatist by some but those fighting the good fight have a higher profile than I do (they still have my support, for whatever that is worth) and... the bottom line is I don't have enough spare time to worry about this. If they introduces systems to allow more flexibility then I'll take another look at it, otherwise I have better things to do with my time. There are, obviously, ways I could game the system and get back in but the costs start outweighing the benefits (I considered the same plan for Facebook, which would have been easier than getting back into G+, but couldn't be bothered then either).

Not apparently true - although Lady Gaga and 50 Cent use a first name last name approach, so did I ("The" being the first name) and so have Kaliya Identity Woman, Doctor Popular, Bug Girl and Rainyday Superstar. Google seem to want you to put you legal name in the name field (or a reasonably close approximation, that you can see is derived from your legal ID) and any nicknames or pseudonyms in the "other names" field,

Not exactly true either. I'm pretty sure that Zoetica Ebb's real name is not, in fact, 'Zoetica Ebb,' and as far as I know she hasn't run into any problems, nor is she super-famous.

The guiding principal seems that your name doesn't contain something that is obviously not a name, as in all your examples, and unfortunately yourself. The biggest problem with this, frankly, is that some people have names that are weird, or part of their name doesn't appear particularly name-like. Like Tim Twelves.

One aspect that is obviously going to be important is retention. This survey suggest 83% of people are inactive. Now the data looks slightly suspect but it does seem to parallel anecdotal evidence - a very small percentage of people are contributing the bulk of the posts, a lot of people haven't ever posted anything and quite a few active people are leaving (I've seen more than one thread on this - some because it isn't that different from other larger social networks and some because of concerns over privacy/naming issues), while there are also a growing group of people not signing up - G+ might have won the Nym Wars but the bad publicity hasn't helped and people with, for example Android phones, are increasingly wary of joining because getting suspended can impact the functionality of their phones. G+ do need to hit some kind of critical mass where there is a good percentage of people's friends on there which makes it worth people's while in using it. So this is the one to watch.

Robert Scoble has been one of the more outspoken supporters of this outside Google+ (although to be honest I know plenty of people inside G+ who aren't enthusiastic about it or at least would support pseudonymous use, at least one of them has been subsequently gagged), but even he has mellowed on this, although he says he does prefer the aesthetics of the place without all those weird names cluttering it up.

It seems to me that the most obvious answer then is for us to try to make you a page on Wikipedia.

LOL, cheers but it might be a while before I can demonstrate notability ;) Then again it might be we only need the page active for the length of the appeals process... ;) This is another example of where the costs outweigh the benefits.

I'm just waiting for my account to get flagged, if it does.

I wouldn't worry too much, as DavidLejeune says above they are currently picking off the most obvious pseudonyms, then they'll get around to the those rattling the cage (as they'll show up in a lot of Nym Wars threads and often have publicly declared on G+ that they are using pseudonyms) and then it is a longer more difficult trawl through what may be be around 2 million pseudonymous accounts. As this largely relies on people reporting accounts it will mean suspensions are going to be a little random, the problem I think will be that if you piss someone off and they spot you are using a pseudonym they could easily report you as revenge. However, if the name looks WASP-normal and you keep your head down you should be fine for now.

I wouldn't worry too much, as DavidLejeune says above they are currently picking off the most obvious pseudonyms, then they'll get around to the those rattling the cage (as they'll show up in a lot of Nym Wars threads and often have publicly declared on G+ that they are using pseudonyms) and then it is a longer more difficult trawl through what may be be around 2 million pseudonymous accounts. As this largely relies on people reporting accounts it will mean suspensions are going to be a little random, the problem I think will be that if you piss someone off and they spot you are using a pseudonym they could easily report you as revenge. However, if the name looks WASP-normal and you keep your head down you should be fine for now.

Oh I know. I have my name set as "Ian ravnos" currently, and if they do ANY sort of checking on any of my sites, that are linked straight through my G+ account they will know that it's not my real name. I figure they'll either ignore it (which according to their TOS they have to), or flag me at some point in the distant future. Unless they change it to allow you to have a nickname as/in your main account name, in which case I will change mine happily. I'm actually highly irritated there isn't a spot for a middle name/initial, because when I go by my real name I always go by Ian E. Muller, not just Ian Muller... Irritating.

The thing is, you're looking at this as though there are human beings going through all the G+ accounts saying 'hmm, that doesn't look like a name to ME, *click send warning.* It's not. It's really obviously not. This is Google we're talking about. They're not going to have a person do something that they can have an algorithm do 1000 times faster. Tim Twelves got nicked because the algorithm saw a number in his name and fucked him. Wood got nicked because it saw four single unconnected letters. The Emperor got it because it saw 'the' and 'emperor.' His appeal was denied because adding those exceptions into the algorithm opens the doors for too many other bullshit names. The number of active, obviously pseudonymous names I've seen precludes this being some WASP normative name crackdown (Zo, Roo T.Fireember,Morgaine LeFey. I'm 99% certain i could register Kolfinnia Kokokoho and not run into any fucking problems. Doctor Lovesponge would get nuked immediately, though)

The thing is, you're looking at this as though there are human beings going through all the G+ accounts saying 'hmm, that doesn't look like a name to ME, *click send warning.* It's not. It's really obviously not. This is Google we're talking about. They're not going to have a person do something that they can have an algorithm do 1000 times faster.

As far as I'm aware they are still responding to people reporting profiles (crowdsourcing is much less hassle and is better at distinguishing pseudonyms) - there are still plainly pseudonyms accounts active using common words in their name (although I won't name names). I think evidence of them actively hunting down pseudonyms might cause a bit of a riot, better to leave the "blame" on the users. That said they have, apparently, introduced algorithms to check the names of new users signing up, so they can "help" them avoid falling into situations where the they can get banned (I am not sure how strict this is but I'd bet they are stopping some people from signing up and it might be they'd need ID to prove they are who they say they are), so these could equally be used to root out the pseudonymous, I am just unsure they are doing that yet or even if they plan to.